Suggest IPA Symbols for these vowel sounds

[MDbaloch]

Hi Everyone,

I am sharing some links of my pronunciation of some vowel sounds (3 long o, 3 long e, 2 short e and 2 short o sounds).
Please listen to these vowel sounds and suggest the perfect IPA symbols for each vowel sound. will be thankful to you

here are the links:

3 long o > https://soundcloud.com/user963161033/3-long-o
2 short o > http://soundcloud.com/user963161033/2-short-o
3 long e > https://soundcloud.com/user963161033/3-long-e
2 short e > http://soundcloud.com/user963161033/2-short-e

I think in the first case the IPA symbols for vowel sounds, are :
long o 1=[oː] or [øː]
long o 2=[o̞ː] or [ɔː]
long o 3=[uː]

and in the second case :
short o 1=[o̞] not [ʊ] as in "put" (GA) . to me, its the short form of long [o̞ː].
short o 2=[/u/] also not [ʊ] as in "put" (RP). its the short form of long [/uː/] as well.

and in the third case :
long e 1=[eː] or [ɪː] or [ɨː]
long e 2=[e̞ː] or [ɛː]
long e 3=[iː]

and in the forth one :
short e 1=[e] short form of long [eː] but more shorter than as in "bet"  (RP) or [ɛ] as in "pen" (RP)
short e 2=[/i/] the short form of long [iː] or [ɪ] as in "igloo" (PR)

am i right ? or .... ?

[Daniel]

Are you asking about the pronunciation of IPA sounds in general? Or are you asking about the pronunciation of sounds in English (or another language) specifically?

[Note: I removed the bold formatting from your posts so it was easier to read.]



It's hard for me to tell you exactly what these sounds are without context for comparison (eg, a target word) or knowing your voice in general. (Everyone pronounces sounds differently, so it's only relative to one's specific voice that we know which vowels are being produced. My "u" might be your "o", if our voices are different in quality.)

But let's see:

3 long o > https://soundcloud.com/user963161033/3-long-o
I hear variation in this, something like [o/u?:], [o:], [u:]
2 short o > http://soundcloud.com/user963161033/2-short-o
I hear [o], [o], [u], [u]
These are short (in time) but not English "short vowels" (=lax in IPA).
3 long e > https://soundcloud.com/user963161033/3-long-e
I hear [i:], [e:], [ij]
2 short e > http://soundcloud.com/user963161033/2-short-e
I hear [e], [e/ɛ?], [i], [ɪ]
Again (for the first two) you are producing short vowels (in time) but not lax vowels.


I hope that helps. I need a little more information, but I'll be happy to discuss it more.

Are you trying to determine whether your pronunciation in English sounds like GA and/or RP? Or are you trying to learn IPA?

This website is very helpful:
http://www.phonetics.ucla.edu/course/chapter1/chapter1.html

A good methodology is this:
1. Think of a sound you want to identify.
2. Look on the vowel (or consonant chart) and try to locate it.
3. Listen to each sound and see if it sounds correct. Then identify the one that sounds best.

That works very well because we usually are very good at perceiving target sounds-- we know when the sound is just right.
However, if your perception of English is better than your production of English, you might actually perceive it well but still pronounce it wrong-- in that case we can listen to the vowels and tell you. But please identify the IPA target you are trying to produce (or an English word) first.

[freknu]

What I hear is:

[oː ɔː uː]
[ɔ ʉ]
[i̞ː eː iː]
[e ɨ]

Following what seems to be a pattern, you get the following phonemes:

/oː ɔː uː/
/ɔ ʉ/ (or alternatively /ɔ u/)
/eː ɛː iː/
/ɛ ɨ/ (or alternatively /ɛ i/)

[Daniel]

Hm...

[ø], [ʉ], [ɨ] and a couple others were suggested as transcriptions in the posts above. But those aren't phonemes in English.

My answer was based on English phonemes (and my own native-speaker categorical perception), with the results above. Phonetically it's possible that I'm off on that (because I'm assuming English perception), although none of the sounds seemed particularly wrong for the transcriptions I gave-- I wasn't intentionally simplifying them to unnatural transcriptions just for the sake of English. But again context for the question would help with that.

[MDbaloch]

Are you asking about the pronunciation of IPA sounds in general? Or are you asking about the pronunciation of sounds in English (or another language) specifically?

First of all, thank you so much for your detailed response.
Actually, i am asking about the pronunciation of IPA sound in "Balochi" language. which is a member of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family.

[Note: I removed the bold formatting from your posts so it was easier to read.]

agree, thanks again 

It's hard for me to tell you exactly what these sounds are without context for comparison (eg, a target word) or knowing your voice in general. (Everyone pronounces sounds differently, so it's only relative to one's specific voice that we know which vowels are being produced. My "u" might be your "o", if our voices are different in quality.)

these are balochi words and i am finding the perfect IPA symbols for these different vowel sounds.

But let's see:

3 long o > https://soundcloud.com/user963161033/3-long-o
I hear variation in this, something like [o/u?:], [o:], [u:]

this is a Balochi word. the only difference is the vowel quality in these three form of this word, that changes the meaning of it. there are 2 consonants and one vowel sound. the starting consonant is /d/ and the ending one is /r/. well, i,ll try to write it in Roman
1= dor (pain)
2= dour/daor (time)
3= door (far)
i am almost clear about the vowel sound of third form of this word "door" that should be /du:r/ and a little bit about the vowel sound of second form of this word "dour/daor" that may be /do:r/.
but so confused about the vowel sound of the first form "dor" . which is i think less rounded as compare to /u:/ and more rounded than /o:/ as in "yawn" in Australian pronunciation. may be i am totally wrong !
 
2 short o > http://soundcloud.com/user963161033/2-short-o
I hear [o], [o], [u], [u]
These are short (in time) but not English "short vowels" (=lax in IPA).


if i write this word in Roman it may be :
1= /kott/ as in "hook /hʊk/" in american pronunciation.
2= /kutt/ as in "buk /buk/" in Polish

may be these sounds are short tense vowels ?


3 long e > https://soundcloud.com/user963161033/3-long-e
I hear [i:], [e:], [ij]

this is again one word. the only difference is the vowel quality in this word, that changes the meaning of it. there are 2 consonants and one vowel sound. the starting consonant is /ʃ/ and the ending one is /r/. well, i,ll try to write  it in Roman
1= sheyr (Tiger)
2= shair (Poem)
3= sheer (Milk)
i am almost clear about the vowel sound of third form of this word "sheer" that should be /ʃiːr/.
and a little bit about the vowel sound of second form of this word "shair" that may be /ʃe:r/.
but so confused about the vowel sound of the first form "sheyr" . which is i think less closed as compare to /i:/ and more closed than /e:/ as in "bed" in NZ english. but it's just my opinion, I could be wrong !

2 short e > http://soundcloud.com/user963161033/2-short-e
I hear [e], [e/ɛ?], [i], [ɪ]
Again (for the first two) you are producing short vowels (in time) but not lax vowels.

again i write these 2 forms in Roman:
1= kett /kett/ as in "ken /ken/" in American pronunciation.
2= kitt/kitt/ as in "bit /bit/" in Australian pronunciation.

now, what is your observation ?


I hope that helps. I need a little more information, but I'll be happy to discuss it more.

Indeed, it helped me alot. but i need more specification. hope you will help me once again.

Are you trying to determine whether your pronunciation in English sounds like GA and/or RP? Or are you trying to learn IPA?

not at all, i am just to trying to find the perfect IPA symbol of these vowel sounds.
in fact, there is not enough details available on Balochi Phonetics. that is why i am trying to find IPA symbol for these vowel sounds.
I hope you will help me to find out these sounds. Thanks again !

This website is very helpful:
http://www.phonetics.ucla.edu/course/chapter1/chapter1.html

A good methodology is this:
1. Think of a sound you want to identify.
2. Look on the vowel (or consonant chart) and try to locate it.
3. Listen to each sound and see if it sounds correct. Then identify the one that sounds best.

That works very well because we usually are very good at perceiving target sounds-- we know when the sound is just right.
However, if your perception of English is better than your production of English, you might actually perceive it well but still pronounce it wrong-- in that case we can listen to the vowels and tell you. But please identify the IPA target you are trying to produce (or an English word) first.
let me tell you that i have searched a lot about IPA symbols and their sounds in many ways. but still confused.
but thank you so much for your guidance. i will check it out. thanks again and again !

[MDbaloch]

What I hear is:

[oː ɔː uː]
[ɔ ʉ]
[i̞ː eː iː]
[e ɨ]

Following what seems to be a pattern, you get the following phonemes:

/oː ɔː uː/

Thank you so much !
i am almost satisfied with these sound !!
 
/ɔ ʉ/ (or alternatively /ɔ u/)

again, almost satisfied with /ɔ u/

/eː ɛː iː/

and once again "almost" satisfied with these three sounds !

/ɛ ɨ/ (or alternatively [ɛ i])

again, "almost satisfied with [ɛ i] !

Thank you so much ! it helped me !
let me know please if you have more specifications.

[Daniel]

First of all, thank you so much for your detailed response.
Actually, i am asking about the pronunciation of IPA sound in "Balochi" language. which is a member of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family.

Ok, great
Then what we need from you is a set of minimal pairs (which you have provided) and we can then help to determine which ones are which sounds. I think, given that, freknu's response *might* be better than mine, because mine is based on my categorical perception in English (but he might also be basing his reply, even unintentionally, on his native languages).
Generally speaking, while we can help some, it is very important to rely on your own native speaker intuitions-- using the vowel chart at UCLA that I linked to is a great idea, for example.

this is a Balochi word. the only difference is the vowel quality in these three form of this word, that changes the meaning of it. there are 2 consonants and one vowel sound. the starting consonant is /d/ and the ending one is /r/. well, i,ll try to write it in Roman
1= dor (pain)
2= dour/daor (time)
3= door (far)
i am almost clear about the vowel sound of third form of this word "door" that should be /du:r/ and a little bit about the vowel sound of second form of this word "dour/daor" that may be /do:r/.
but so confused about the vowel sound of the first form "dor" . which is i think less rounded as compare to /u:/ and more rounded than /o:/ as in "yawn" in Australian pronunciation. may be i am totally wrong !

Yes I think it's [o:] and [u:].
The first one is less clear. You should listen to the IPA chart examples to see which one sounds right to you. I'd just be guessing. Maybe [ʊ:]?

if i write this word in Roman it may be :
1= /kott/ as in "hook /hʊk/" in american pronunciation.
2= /kutt/ as in "buk /buk/" in Polish

may be these sounds are short tense vowels ?

Yes, I think so. I think they're short vowels of the same quality as the long vowels. [o], [u].
(Maybe [ʊ] [u] if the first is a short version of #1 or #2 above.)

this is again one word. the only difference is the vowel quality in this word, that changes the meaning of it. there are 2 consonants and one vowel sound. the starting consonant is /ʃ/ and the ending one is /r/. well, i,ll try to write  it in Roman
1= sheyr (Tiger)
2= shair (Poem)
3= sheer (Milk)
i am almost clear about the vowel sound of third form of this word "sheer" that should be /ʃiːr/.
and a little bit about the vowel sound of second form of this word "shair" that may be /ʃe:r/.
but so confused about the vowel sound of the first form "sheyr" . which is i think less closed as compare to /i:/ and more closed than /e:/ as in "bed" in NZ english. but it's just my opinion, I could be wrong !

Maybe this?
[e:], [ɛ:], [i:]

And maybe the first one is:
[ɔ:] [o:] [u:]?

At least that would be a pattern.

again i write these 2 forms in Roman:
1= kett /kett/ as in "ken /ken/" in American pronunciation.
2= kitt/kitt/ as in "bit /bit/" in Australian pronunciation.

now, what is your observation ?

I'd say [e], [i].
(Maybe [ɛ], [ɪ], but I think the vowel quality is probably not changing significantly from the long vowels.)

let me tell you that i have searched a lot about IPA symbols and their sounds in many ways. but still confused.
but thank you so much for your guidance. i will check it out. thanks again and again !

You should be able to just listen to the symbols and then decide which one seems right.
If that doesn't happen, then it is possible there is something else going on-- for example it might be a diphthong (combination of two sounds) or a length difference, and those aren't represented on the IPA chart. But at least you can get some idea.



In general, the way that the IPA works is this: it is designed to give you enough symbols to represent sufficient differences. It is not designed to give you a perfect representation of the actual sounds. It is phonological (or phonemic) rather than phonetic.

If you want to figure out exactly what these sounds are, then the best method is using a vowel chart like this:
[EDIT: SEE LX'S POST BELOW]
That plots F1 and F2 (the first two formants in the sound which are the most important for identifying vowels) and will actually represent the sound.

Then you can decide the best approximation with IPA. Also, there is an important detail here: those charts are based on a lot of data and represent an average of each vowel representation-- very importantly, they include variation. The IPA symbol is meant to capture the average sound or the midpoint, not all of the variation. So by listening to many instances of a certain vowel, you can decide which symbol works best-- not because it's perfect for any specific instance, but because it's reasonable for all/most of them.

The "sound" [o] in English and Spanish and German is actually slightly different, but we use the same sound so that it represents the same systematic relationships with the other sounds.

Technically, there is no rule about using a "perfect" IPA sound (you could use anything you want) as long as the systematic properties work out including the features. So if you have a feature [±lax] then you'd need to use pairs like [ɛ] and [e], but if you have a feature [±length] then you'd use pairs like [e] and [eː]. In the end, this is a theoretical matter for analysis, not a question of phonetics.


But in short: the best answer will be whatever sounds correct to your native ears

I'm happy to offer comments, but I am by definition unqualified because I'm not a native speaker of Balochi!



I think if you take an "average" of my response, freknu's response, and your own intuitions, you'll get pretty close to a reasonable analysis

[lx]

I've never seen a vowel chart with formants that have F1 on the x-axis and F2 on the y-axis. It ruins the whole pattern that reversing the order gives you the basic vowel space chart of where the vowels are produced in the mouth. Why would someone not take advantage of displaying that fact?   

[Daniel]

Thanks lx! I didn't notice that. I just grabbed the first image from a search for vowel chart. Yours is better, so I just removed the weird one from my post

[MDbaloch]

First of all, thank you so much for your detailed response.
Actually, i am asking about the pronunciation of IPA sound in "Balochi" language. which is a member of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family.

Ok, great
Then what we need from you is a set of minimal pairs (which you have provided) and we can then help to determine which ones are which sounds. I think, given that, freknu's response *might* be better than mine, because mine is based on my categorical perception in English (but he might also be basing his reply, even unintentionally, on his native languages).
Generally speaking, while we can help some, it is very important to rely on your own native speaker intuitions-- using the vowel chart at UCLA that I linked to is a great idea, for example.

this is a Balochi word. the only difference is the vowel quality in these three form of this word, that changes the meaning of it. there are 2 consonants and one vowel sound. the starting consonant is /d/ and the ending one is /r/. well, i,ll try to write it in Roman
1= dor (pain)
2= dour/daor (time)
3= door (far)
i am almost clear about the vowel sound of third form of this word "door" that should be /du:r/ and a little bit about the vowel sound of second form of this word "dour/daor" that may be /do:r/.
but so confused about the vowel sound of the first form "dor" . which is i think less rounded as compare to /u:/ and more rounded than /o:/ as in "yawn" in Australian pronunciation. may be i am totally wrong !

Yes I think it's [o:] and [u:].
The first one is less clear. You should listen to the IPA chart examples to see which one sounds right to you. I'd just be guessing. Maybe [ʊ:]?

if i write this word in Roman it may be :
1= /kott/ as in "hook /hʊk/" in american pronunciation.
2= /kutt/ as in "buk /buk/" in Polish

may be these sounds are short tense vowels ?

Yes, I think so. I think they're short vowels of the same quality as the long vowels. [o], [u].
(Maybe [ʊ] [u] if the first is a short version of #1 or #2 above.)

this is again one word. the only difference is the vowel quality in this word, that changes the meaning of it. there are 2 consonants and one vowel sound. the starting consonant is /ʃ/ and the ending one is /r/. well, i,ll try to write  it in Roman
1= sheyr (Tiger)
2= shair (Poem)
3= sheer (Milk)
i am almost clear about the vowel sound of third form of this word "sheer" that should be /ʃiːr/.
and a little bit about the vowel sound of second form of this word "shair" that may be /ʃe:r/.
but so confused about the vowel sound of the first form "sheyr" . which is i think less closed as compare to /i:/ and more closed than /e:/ as in "bed" in NZ english. but it's just my opinion, I could be wrong !

Maybe this?
[e:], [ɛ:], [i:]

And maybe the first one is:
[ɔ:] [o:] [u:]?

At least that would be a pattern.

again i write these 2 forms in Roman:
1= kett /kett/ as in "ken /ken/" in American pronunciation.
2= kitt/kitt/ as in "bit /bit/" in Australian pronunciation.

now, what is your observation ?

I'd say [e], [i].
(Maybe [ɛ], [ɪ], but I think the vowel quality is probably not changing significantly from the long vowels.)

let me tell you that i have searched a lot about IPA symbols and their sounds in many ways. but still confused.
but thank you so much for your guidance. i will check it out. thanks again and again !

You should be able to just listen to the symbols and then decide which one seems right.
If that doesn't happen, then it is possible there is something else going on-- for example it might be a diphthong (combination of two sounds) or a length difference, and those aren't represented on the IPA chart. But at least you can get some idea.



In general, the way that the IPA works is this: it is designed to give you enough symbols to represent sufficient differences. It is not designed to give you a perfect representation of the actual sounds. It is phonological (or phonemic) rather than phonetic.

If you want to figure out exactly what these sounds are, then the best method is using a vowel chart like this:
[EDIT: SEE LX'S POST BELOW]
That plots F1 and F2 (the first two formants in the sound which are the most important for identifying vowels) and will actually represent the sound.

Then you can decide the best approximation with IPA. Also, there is an important detail here: those charts are based on a lot of data and represent an average of each vowel representation-- very importantly, they include variation. The IPA symbol is meant to capture the average sound or the midpoint, not all of the variation. So by listening to many instances of a certain vowel, you can decide which symbol works best-- not because it's perfect for any specific instance, but because it's reasonable for all/most of them.

The "sound" [o] in English and Spanish and German is actually slightly different, but we use the same sound so that it represents the same systematic relationships with the other sounds.

Technically, there is no rule about using a "perfect" IPA sound (you could use anything you want) as long as the systematic properties work out including the features. So if you have a feature [±lax] then you'd need to use pairs like [ɛ] and [e], but if you have a feature [±length] then you'd use pairs like [e] and [eː]. In the end, this is a theoretical matter for analysis, not a question of phonetics.


But in short: the best answer will be whatever sounds correct to your native ears

I'm happy to offer comments, but I am by definition unqualified because I'm not a native speaker of Balochi!



I think if you take an "average" of my response, freknu's response, and your own intuitions, you'll get pretty close to a reasonable analysis

==================================

Yes, I think so. I think they're short vowels of the same quality as the long vowels. [o], [u].
(Maybe [ʊ] [u] if the first is a short version of #1 or #2 above.)

yes, i think the first one is [ʊ] and the second one is [/u/] the short form of its long sound.

..........

Maybe this?
[e:], [ɛ:], [i:]

And maybe the first one is:
[ɔ:] [o:] [u:]?

At least that would be a pattern.

Thank you so much once again for such a helpful response!

after listening carefully to the IPA vowel chart, based on your guidance, i finally reached a conclusion that in the first case the vowel sounds should be :
1. [ʊ:]
2.  [o̞ː] (mid back rounded vowel) not [o:] (close mid one).
but in IPA phonemic transcription i should use /o:/ avoiding the  diacritical sign[  ̞ ]. if i need to give more information i should use that diacritical sign in [] ?
also, in some cases i  noted [ɔ:] sound.
3. is definitely [u:] sound !
for your observation i have recorded my pronunciation based on  English(RP) minimal pairs "soot /sʊt/" and "suit /su:t/" and put my own minimal pairs "sout /sʊ:t/  and "soat /sɔ:t/. in this recording the first minimal pairs are PR English and the second minimal pairs are Balochi. which are very closed together !
by listening this recording you may reach  a conclusion !
here is the recording :
https://soundcloud.com/user963161033/soot-shuit-sout-soat
??

and in the second case of long "e", i got these sounds :
1.[ɪ:] yes, long form of /ɪ/ ??
2.[e̞ː] again , this is mid-back rounded, not close mid-back [e:] . phonemically i can define it /e:/ . but if i need to give details then i must use the  diacritical sign[  ̞ ].
and again, in some cases i noted the sound /ɛ:/.
3. is is definitely [i:] sound !
again,for your observation i have recorded my pronunciation based on  English(RP) minimal pairs "ship /ʃɪp/" and "sheep /ʃi:p/ " and put my own minimal pairs "sheyp /ʃɪ:p/ ?  and "shaip /ʃɛ:p/. in this recording the first minimal pairs are PR English and the second minimal pairs are Balochi. which are very  close together!
by listening this recording you may reach  a conclusion !
here is the recording :
http://soundcloud.com/user963161033/ship-sheep-sheyp-shaip
??
...............................

I'd say [e], [i].
(Maybe [ɛ], [ɪ], but I think the vowel quality is probably not changing significantly from the long vowels.)

i think the first one is [ɛ] and the second one is [/i/] the short form of its long soud

thank you so much for such a helpful response !

[MDbaloch]

I've never seen a vowel chart with formants that have F1 on the x-axis and F2 on the y-axis. It ruins the whole pattern that reversing the order gives you the basic vowel space chart of where the vowels are produced in the mouth. Why would someone not take advantage of displaying that fact?   

it helped me !!
Thanks a lot !

[Daniel]

I'm glad this is helpful. Trust your instincts

but in IPA phonemic transcription i should use /o:/ avoiding the  diacritical sign[  ̞ ]. if i need to give more information i should use that diacritical sign in [] ?

It depends on your purposes.
For broad transcription use the basic symbols that show the relevant contrasts.
For narrow transcription use the diacritics and other details.

For most purposes, broad transcription is sufficient. Narrow transcription would be used for specific phonetic purposes or for giving additional details. For example, in a descriptive grammar, you would usually use broad transcription in the whole book except in the section where you introduce the sounds.

Unless the two vowels (o vs. o ̞) are contrastive, it doesn't matter so much. I'd say just go with

• and make a note somewhere.

https://soundcloud.com/user963161033/soot-shuit-sout-soat

What I hear is: [ʊ] [u:] [ou] [o:]
[ou] is a diphthong, so I guess [ow] or [oʊ] would be better.

http://soundcloud.com/user963161033/ship-sheep-sheyp-shaip

Again, what I hear is: [ɪ] [i:] [i:~ɪ:] [e:~ɛ:]

[MDbaloch]

I'm glad this is helpful. Trust your instincts

Thanks

but in IPA phonemic transcription i should use /o:/ avoiding the  diacritical sign[  ̞ ]. if i need to give more information i should use that diacritical sign in [] ?

It depends on your purposes.
For broad transcription use the basic symbols that show the relevant contrasts.
For narrow transcription use the diacritics and other details.

For most purposes, broad transcription is sufficient. Narrow transcription would be used for specific phonetic purposes or for giving additional details. For example, in a descriptive grammar, you would usually use broad transcription in the whole book except in the section where you introduce the sounds.

Unless the two vowels (o vs. o ̞) are contrastive, it doesn't matter so much. I'd say just go with

• and make a note somewhere.

Thanks. I agree !  :)

https://soundcloud.com/user963161033/soot-shuit-sout-soat

What I hear is: [ʊ] [u:] [ou] [o:]
[ou] is a diphthong, so I guess [ow] or [oʊ] would be better.
I am now satisfied with  [o:] . but in my instincts this sound is a monophthong . after i searched more i noted that this sound is centralized  version of [u:] or it may be [ʊ:](lax).
what do you suggest me after listening all of my sounds of this vowel quality?

http://soundcloud.com/user963161033/ship-sheep-sheyp-shaip

Again, what I hear is: [ɪ] [i:] [i:~ɪ:] [e:~ɛ:]

agree ! "[i:~ɪ:] " can it be the centralized version of [i:] ? or its okay with [ ɪ:] ?
what is your final suggestion ?

[Daniel]

I am now satisfied with  [o:] . but in my instincts this sound is a monophthong . after i searched more i noted that this sound is centralized  version of [u:] or it may be [ʊ:](lax).
what do you suggest me after listening all of my sounds of this vowel quality?


agree ! "[i:~ɪ:] " can it be the centralized version of [i:] ? or its okay with [ ɪ:] ?
what is your final suggestion ?

So maybe the system involves [i:], [u:], [e:], [o:] and [ɨ:][ʉ:]?

It's hard to me to say because those sounds are unfamiliar for my ears, but I'd imagine you could actually tell by feeling where your tongue is when they're produced.

Note that the same time lax vowels like ɪ and ʊ are actually somewhat centralized: lax means that the sound is not as strongly articulated, that the tongue is not held as extremely, not as far from the center. So a lax vowel is slightly more central and slightly more mid than a tense vowel. In other words, there could be a blurry line between ɪ~ɨ and ʊ~ʉ. Since you are not making claims about tenseness or laxness and the length is constant, I'd say maybe the central analysis is a good idea. But make sure it seems reasonable based on how you actually physically articulate the sounds!

[freknu]

Looking at some online material, the documented vowels of Belochi seem to be as follows:

/i u a iː uː aː/
/eː oː ẽː õː/
/ai au/

Which on first glance seems quite close to the PIE/PII vowel inventory.

Proto-Indo-European
monophthong — *e *o *ē *ō
diphthong — *eH *oH *ēH *ōH (where H represents the semivowels i̯ u̯)

Proto-Indo-Iranian
monophthong — *i *u *a *ī *ū *ā
diphthong — *aH *āH (where H represents the semivowels i̯ u̯)

Belochi
monophthong¹ — i u a ī ū ā
monophthong² — ē ō ḗ ṓ (where ḗ ṓ represent nasal variants of ē ō)
diphthong — ai au

The short vowels also tend to be more centralised than their long counterparts. The nasal vowels are said to occur only in some dialects.

I couldn't find any material showing the preservation of the PII long diphthongs. The PIE *e *o *ē *ō merged into PII *a *ā, and PIE *i̯ *u̯ became PII *i *u. The PII long counterparts *ī *ū probably come from PIE diphthongs *ei *eu (or possibly *ēi *ēu). The PIE laryngeals merged into a single /H/ (not to be confused with the H from above) of unknown quality (though often assumed to have been a glottal stop), though it might have a hand in forming some of the PII and later Beloichi vowels, I'm not sure.

Does this seem reasonable? Does this explain what you intuit?

Don't take this as absolute truth, I'm an not an expert on PIE or PII, but this is what I gather from online material, and it seems reasonable.

At least it might point you in the right direction.